Cominolli safety for Glocks

[denfoote]

Slam_Fire,

Mellow out, Dude!!!

The last time I checked, the repetition of sage advice, especially when it comes to safety, was a good thing!!!

Why is it, that every time someone so much as mentions a manual safety on this board, someone has to jump up and start in with the "safety between your ears" stuff.

 

[thaddeus]

I also just put a Cominolli safety on my carry Glock 32. I love it.

I also get tired of other people preaching at me how to carry MY gun. I have been shooting 25 years, been shooting Glocks avidly since 1989, shot competitively, and used my gun in defense. I know what I like and need.

The Glock does not need a safety, but for me and the way I carry my Glock and my circumstances, I wanted the extra safety on the gun.

The Cominolli safety DOES have positive "click" engagement and disengagent if installed correctly. I called Joe Cominolli and he was nice enough to give me advice on tuning it after I installed it.

I did not like the Safe-T-Block because it :

1) requires my trigger finger to disengage the safety which takes time and fine motor movement and good aim.

2) When I practice, the Safe-T-Block is always falling on the ground and I have to pick it up every time I draw my gun whereas the thumb safety is part of my gun.

3) The Cominolli Thumb safety is much easier to disengage under stress and much faster because it happens "automatically" when I grip and draw the gun, just like my 1911.


I have many 1911's and have carried them. Currently I prefer a Glock because I don't think 9 rounds is enough in my gun, and the 1911 is overweight for what I get, and it is not as handy. The Glock is rust proof, has a light mount, is lightweight, and a great gun for all purposes. I think the 1911 is a great gun, but the Glock is a superior package design for general use.
That is my opinion, it is my gun and my life and like others stated above it does get tiring having other people's opinions shoved down your throat. If you don't like Glocks, don't like 1911's, don't like thumb safeties, don't like whatever, it is fine to have that opinion but people get all worked up trying to convince others that their way is the only way.

 

[thaddeus]

PS- After many years of carrying CCW I have found that the quickest-access easiest way to carry my gun, in business casual dress at work is in a Smart Carry crotch holster. It is amazingly quick to draw. In this cloth holster, I prefer to have an extra external safety. That is one big reason I installed the safety, is that I seldom am able to carry my Glock in a hard holster. (The USP is way to fat to carry, for me, I already own one and I prefer the Glock).

Another reason I installed the extra safety is that I have a 2 year old. I made a commitment to always carry my gun, even at home (the safest place for my gun is on my hip), so he should never get a hold of it, but in the event he did, the thumb safety gives an extra measure of safety.

There are other good reasons too, one of many is if a criminal grabs my gun I have a few seconds to take countermeasures while he figures it out (I am told there were tests done on this and like %85 of people could not figure out the safety on a 1911 for several seconds).

Like everything there are a lot of positives and negatives to the thumb safety. For me the positives far outweight the negatives.

 

[bnolsen]

So I guess putting one of these onto a glock would pretty much make a kydex holster not fit anymore. I have a sidearmor IWB with a glock 20 for carry (yes I like them big).

I'm with most of you guys on the glocks, I'm always skittish about reholstering my weapon, especially when I get my shirt or tshirt caught in the process.

When I find a holster I like I'll likely change over to carrying a CZ based EAA Witness. I love firing that thing.

 

[Preacherman]

No, it doesn't affect holstering at all - it sits high on the grip, where the holster doesn't reach. I have a Milt Sparks VersaMax II IWB for my Glocks, and I can use Cominolli-equipped Glocks in it just as easily as standard weapons, even with the extended inner leather "upper".

 

[bnolsen]

The sidearmor comes up all the way to the rear of the weapon.

Since the safety is in line with the slide catch it should work fine as long as it doesn't protrude out further than the slide catch.

I was just looking around for other comments about this external safety and holy smokes I had no clue how militantly people oppose this type of safely on a glock.

 

[arover2]

I bought a new Glock model 22 last year, and recently had a Cominolli thumb safety installed by a qualified gunsmith listed on their web site.
I'm an experienced 1911-A1 shooter, and do competition matches also with my .45's .
I am very happy with the thumb safety on my Glock, and operate this pistol just like my 1911-A1's, and "the cocked and locked" mind set stays with me shooting both of these pistols.
The speed of getting my Glock into action is the same as the use of my 1911-A1's. Massad Ayoob confirmed these speed results testing experienced shooters doing the same.
My Glock functions just fine with no malfunctions, and I have put hundreds of rounds through it.
Yes, I would agree with other Glock owners that a thumb safety is not needed. But as for me I like this option.
I notice that many Glock owners go irrate, tempers flare, and the name calling starts. And they get down right insulting to even think about a manual safety on a Glock.
Believe me, we who choose to do so are not "sissies" or "inexperienced" or being "female" , as we have been called.
Those words and insults are not warranted at all in any way.
My next project is having this thumb safety installed on my new Glock model 21 .45acp pistol.

 

[carebear]

It's that whole "Glock Perfection" thing gone horribly wrong.

"It's perfect the way Gaston designed it" so any modification or hint of improvability is heresy.

To be fair and balanced, diehard 1911-ers are the same dang way. Witness the horror and outrage at the Series 80 firing pin safety or the new DA / hammer dropping thingie.

If JMB really spun in his grave as much as some true believers claim, they'd be building him a tomb in the Forbidden City right now.

 

[MidnightRambler]

I just picked up a G26, and I will likely get a G19 soon also. There is a place in Brownsburg, IN called Premier Arms that has these safeties and will install them. I might get one, I don't know. I don't really need a safety on a Glock though.

 

[Mike_in_OC]

It does not make sense to me to add an external saftey on a Glock. When you buy a Glock you know what your getting. There are so many other guns you can get with a manual saftey. Why buy a quality gun like a glock then change it....

 

[bob falfa]

Old thread but I'm gonna revive it.

I'm a big believer in consistency. Like many, started out on a M1911A1 in the Army, and the first handgun I ever owned was a Browning Hi-Power. I like and believe in thumb safeties. For me one of the big pluses about the Makarov is that the safety, although slide mounted, works in the same fashion as the M1911/P35. Most are really stiff, but that can be remedied.

Now, I was required to carry a S&W revolver for many years, and had no problem with it, I actually shoot better with a Smith that has a good trigger than I do with my Glock, although that maybe the result of relative hours of use/practice, in which the Smith K-frame is by far the higher value.

But when I have a choice, it's an autoloader every time except for my trusty J-frame. So....I intend to have the Cominolli Safety installed in my Glock..... it'll help with any concerns after I modify that stock Glock trigger, which truly does suck.

 

[FourTeeFive]

These threads are pretty funny. We modify the heck out AK's, AR's, and 1911's, but oh no, don't touch the sacred Glock!

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=371158

I've been looking at a number of Glock manual safeties. Makes perfect sense to me. And that's what matters to me.

 

[augustino]

Cominolli safety for Glocks...

I think the manual Cominolli safety for any Glock is worth every cent. After all many of us have bought Glocks because of the technology that goes into building a Glock. Sure there are 3 internal safety devices but w/o a manual, I always wished... In Europe many Glocks come with a manual safety I've heard. I've heard some say "well why didn't you just buy a 1911..." My reply to that question is simple;
1. Glocks hold more rounds. The model 30 holds 10 in the mag with 1 in the chamber. Now far safer to carry with a chambered round thanks to the manual safety.
2. Glocks are lighter.
3. Glocks are far "tougher" pistols. Thye can withstand far more abuse and can take a licking and come up ticking!
4. Glocks are far more accurate straight out of the box w/o any modifications.
5. The Tenifer finish on a Glock is tougher than straight steel.
6. I can continue but hopefully the point is made.

Glocka represent a revolutionary concept, no a gathering of revolutionary concepts that have come together in the pistols design.
Nothing wrong with a 1911, I love these pistols! But there's nothing wrong with any Glock I've ever fired, I love them as well. Especially the high round capacity.

 

[verdun59]

America is a great place where you have freedom of choice; so if a person wants to put a safety on a Glock why is it such a big deal that causes people to rant and rave and foam at the mouth about heresy, destruction, stupidity, stuff between you ears, perfection,... etc.

On the other hand.......there's alway CZ.

 

[481]

I've never considered the Cominolli safety, let alone heard of it, until now.

After researching it thoroughly, I remain fairly unconvinced that the Glock design "needs" another safety, at least for my uses, and the permanent alteration to the pistol's frame is pretty much a "deal breaker" for me since, with certain exceptions, I prefer my modifications to be "reversable". Three safeties is plenty, the pistol is just fine as she is. I wonder if such an unauthorized modification would void the warranty also.

Carried properly, in a holster, the design has been proven adequately safe over the last two plus decades and the addition of "extra parts" just means that there is more opportunity for a part to fail when you least expect it to.

Much as I like my Glock(s), I don't think that I'd be able to withstand the "pyschic" pain of knowing that somebody was "cutting" on my "time proven, ever-dependable" pistol's frame.

I suppose that for those who've no problem with the irrevocable modification to their pistol's frame (as well as the addition of those "extra parts") in addition to being dissatisfied with the three safeties already present in the pistol's design or just can't keep their finger off of the trigger, the modification might be warranted. Not my "cup of tea" but, if you like it then you like it.

Seems to me that it is a "solution" is search of "problem" that, if it exists, could be solved by training and a little more discipline.